In many ways, though, what drove Cromwell was his burning religious passion.

Around 1630, when his financial woes were at their worst, he went through a dramatic religious conversion, becoming convinced that God had marked him out for eternal salvation.

Oh, have I lived in and loved darkness and hated the light, he wrote a few years later. I was a chief, the chief of sinners . . . I hated godliness; yet God had mercy upon me. O the riches of His mercy!

But Cromwell was not merely exceptionally religious. He belonged to a particular religious group  the Puritans  who believed that the frivolous Charles I, with his stubborn faith in the Divine Right of Kings and his fondness for elaborate Catholic-style church ceremonies, was betraying the Protestant Reformation.

A century earlier, Henry VIIIs tumultuous break with Roman Catholicism had given rise to a new sense of English identity, rooted in Protestant independence, localism and individualism, and fiercely antagonistic to Continental European influence. But to Englands Protestant middle classes, the return of Papal rule remained a genuine and terrifying threat.

Given his wild mood swings between jubilation and gloom, some biographers have suggested that he suffered from manic depression. That might explain why he laughed as if he had been drunk after the Battle of Dunbar. To men like Cromwell, the sinister armies of international Catholicism were always poised to strike across the Channel and extinguish English Protestantism for ever.

And to those who remembered the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot, and who were horrified by news of the Thirty Years War, the gigantic conflict that tore much of central Europe apart as Spain, France, Sweden and Holland battled for supremacy at the cost of some ten million lives, their fears seemed all too realistic.

....Cromwell was not merely exceptionally religious. He belonged to a particular religious group  the Puritans  who believed that the frivolous Charles I, with his stubborn faith in the Divine Right of Kings and his fondness for elaborate Catholic-style church ceremonies, was betraying the Protestant Reformation.

Might as well start things off with a bang, lol, Cromwell is despised by Irish Catholics.

Me, I see him as being not necessarily the ogre that the Irish perceive, but a flawed if occasionally brilliant man who fervently believed what he believed, and who made quite the mark on the world and in particular early attitudes in the North American colonies, planting the seed of our own Revolution over a century later.

If Cromwell indeed was prone to wide swings of emotion, and I do know that the poet Milton moved him not just to tears with his sonnet On The Late Massacre In Piedmont but to attempted retribution, then he had much in common with Jonathan Edwards.

For all the negativity, there are times when being manic-depressive actually is a favorable trait. Times of turmoil, primarily. You see it in a lot of prominent historic figures, particularly English royalty, oddly enough.

There was a war, started by King Charles I, against Scotland, in which he tried to force Catholicism upon the Scottish Puritans. Presumably, since it was a war, many innocent Scottish people were killed for the crime of not being Roman Catholic.

To blame Cromwell for leading the Puritans in fighting back is hardly fair. This does not mean I don’t feel sorry for any innocent Roman Catholics who may have died.

‘In 1630-42, when he governed without calling a parliament, King Charles I multiplied his enemies by imposing irritating financial exactions upon various classes of the community, using prerogative powers exercised by the king in centuries past. He demanded “ship money” from the towns, fined country gentlemen (including Cromwell) for refusing to accept knighthood, raised “forced loans,” and increased customs duties. He did all this because he had no right to levy fresh taxes without the consent of Parliament; indeed, his broad aim was to secure the financial independence of the monarchy, and to fasten uniformity upon the Church. Thus the king antagonized the Puritan reformers as well as many of the country gentry and townspeople. In 1638 he became involved in a war against his Scottish subjects (he was hereditary king of Scotland as well as of England) when he tried to force upon them a prayer book similar to that in use in the English Church. They rebelled, and he was compelled to call a parliament at Westminster to ask for money to pursue the war. The accumulation of grievances against the king over eleven years made the leaders of the House of Commons aggressive and uncooperative. Cromwell at once showed himself to be a staunch Puritan, and as such gave steady support to the critics of church and government.’

It would seem Charles I started it. Whether Cromwell’s response was perfect in every respect is hardly likely. But who’s response to hostilities is always perfect in every respect. War is awful for all involved.

I read the article at the link. It was interesting. But I also noted what Alex chose to highlight:

"....Cromwell was not merely exceptionally religious. He belonged to a particular religious group  the Puritans  who believed that the frivolous Charles I, with his stubborn faith in the Divine Right of Kings and his fondness for elaborate Catholic-style church ceremonies, was betraying the Protestant Reformation."

New year, same old Know Nothings.

22
posted on 12/31/2010 11:13:24 PM PST
by IrishCatholic
(No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)

I'm not talking about Catholics or Protestants, but CROMWELL (The subject of this article). Cromwell didn't belong in Ireland. Period. He probably didn't belong in England either, but that's another topic.

Should Catholics kill Protestants if they don't become Catholic? No. Of Course Not. Should Cromwell have been offed much sooner than he was? Absolutely, for being in the same class of mass murderer as Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

32
posted on 12/31/2010 11:29:50 PM PST
by Darren McCarty
(We should lead ourselves instead of looking for leaders)

"There was a war, started by King Charles I, against Scotland, in which he tried to force Catholicism upon the Scottish Puritans."

You are entitled to your own faith and own opinion, but not your own history or facts. Charles I never tried to impose Catholicism on anyone including the Scottish Puritans. His crimes against the Puritans was in not more forcefully imposing the Reformation on the Catholic Scots. He was executed because he lost a civil war in which nearly 5% of the English population was killed.

Cromwell was one of the predecessors of our American founding fathers for religious freedom. And (seeing some of the commentary) during the mid-1800s in the USA, maybe American Protestants were right about the immigration problem at that time after all.

I don't know much about Cromwell, but if the following quote is in fact his, I wish he was alive today so that he could deal with our "Congress".

Oliver Cromwell's Speech on the Dissolution of the Long Parliament
Given to the English House of Commons
20 April 1653
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

38
posted on 12/31/2010 11:50:21 PM PST
by skeptoid
(The road to serfdom is being paved by RINOs, and Lisa Murkowski is their mascot.)

Cromwell was the man who couldn't climb down. A good man, a strong man who became the very monster against which he originally rebelled. A fascinating, tragic study of the Great Man in history. What he did in Ireland puts him, I think, well outside the bounds of common human decency, and after him the British found themselves grateful for the return of the crown he had banished. I'm not sure one could conjure a more ambiguous judgment.

That is kind of harsh. Sherman just destroyed property. He didnt try to erase the southern population, just its production.
Cromwell has been compared to Pol Pot. Which, from what I read, is closer to the truth.

44
posted on 01/01/2011 12:14:48 AM PST
by Yorlik803
(better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)

The Irish entered into a confederacy with English Royalists and the era in question is in fact known as Confederate Ireland, so the comparison of Cromwell to Sherman is very apt for several reasons.

Just how did Oliver Cromwell erase the Irish Catholic population, or attempt to do so? Provide historically documented facts, please, and not wild partisan guesstimates from people with an historic axe to grind.

I do have Irish ancestry, and am not without sympathy. I’ve been there many times and have friends in the Republic of Ireland. I love the country and it’s people. But there is an element of grudge that has built over the centuries that is very much like my beloved south and southerners as far as Sherman.

I also have Anglo-irish ancestry, English who held plantations in Ireland. Scotch-Irish ancestry, too. So, it’s not at all unfamiliar to me, as far as either religon or history. But, my points of view very likely will not match yours, so far as interpretation of historic fact is concerned.

The article is not anti-Catholic, your church is only mentioned in passing. Cromwell was a controversial figure, and there are reasons Irish Catholics dislike him. But, that’s not the sum total of the man, it was barely touched upon, and your distaste for him is not the sum total of his existence.

“You are entitled to your own faith and own opinion, but not your own history or facts. Charles I never tried to impose Catholicism on anyone including the Scottish Puritans. His crimes against the Puritans was in not more forcefully imposing the Reformation on the Catholic Scots. He was executed because he lost a civil war in which nearly 5% of the English population was killed. “

The information I posted was obtained from Conservapedia and is not my personal opinion.

Charles I’s persecution, and actual war against, the Scottish puritans is well documented.

If Cromwell overreacted or if his army committed war crimes, I’m not defending that. However, it should not be alleged that he just went about killing Irish Catholics without provocation. It was a war, and just like the war we are in now, innocent people get killed.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.